Grace Nagamine
IndependentQ1 Q1 (Produced Water and Oil and Gas): New Mexico’s oil and gas industry generated 2.7 billion barrels of produced water in 2025. This wastewater can contain salts, chemicals, and radioactive materials, and underground disposal has raised concerns about earthquakes in the Permian Basin. State regulators have also identified gaps in evidence about treatment and environmental safety. What policies, if any, would you support for produced-water treatment, monitoring, disposal, or reuse outside oil and gas operations? What scientific evidence would inform your position?
In House District 51, water is everything. Alamogordo depends on mountain surface water, and well owners near Holloman have lived with PFAS contamination since 2016.
Oil and gas jobs matter to New Mexico families, and I want that industry to succeed. Recycling produced water inside the oilfield is a win for everyone, saving fresh water for homes and farms.
Outside the oilfield, my standard is the one I gave the Sierra Club, which has endorsed my campaign: prove it is safe first. No reuse until independent scientists with no financial tie to the industry confirm treatment removes salts, chemicals, and radioactive materials. Even then, I would limit it to industrial uses, never drinking water or agriculture.
I would also support:
Public monitoring of disposal wells, spills, and seismic activity Independent water testing, toxicology studies, and pilot data, made public Financial assurance so ratepayers never pay for cleanup
My opponent’s biggest donor is the oil and gas industry. My donations come from individuals in this district, so I can respect the industry and its workers while answering only to the people who drink this water.
Q2 Q2 (Water Security): New Mexico’s 50-Year Water Action Plan identifies water conservation, improved storage and delivery, groundwater monitoring, and protection of existing water resources as approaches to long-term water challenges affecting communities, agriculture, and economic development. What policies, investments, research, or new technologies would you prioritize to strengthen New Mexico’s long-term water security? How would you measure whether they increase water availability or reduce water loss?
Alamogordo has already shown what conservation can do, cutting per-person water use from 260 to 165 gallons a day. But conservation alone cannot fix 70-year-old pipes or replace a reservoir lost to wildfire, as Bonito Lake was in 2012.
My priorities:
Fix leaks first. Fund replacement of aging water mains so treated water reaches homes instead of soaking into the ground. Conservation and reuse. Expand conservation programs and municipal wastewater reuse, proven and lower-cost sources of supply. Finish desalination. Complete the pipeline for Alamogordo’s brackish groundwater project, a drought-resistant new supply. Protect watersheds. Invest in forest thinning and wildfire prevention above our surface water sources. Know what we have. Fund aquifer mapping, groundwater monitoring, and the State Engineer’s office so decisions rest on data. Reform capital outlay. Billions in approved infrastructure dollars sit unspent statewide. Fund ready projects and help small communities win Water Trust Board and Colonias funds.
I would measure success with public numbers: annual water-loss audits, main breaks per mile, gallons used per person, acre-feet of new supply delivered, aquifer levels, and how quickly state dollars become finished projects.
Q3 Q3 (Uranium Mining and Cleanup): The EPA reports 523 abandoned uranium mines on or near the Navajo Nation, including 30 mines in New Mexico within one mile of Navajo Nation lands. Past uranium mining and milling have raised environmental and public-health concerns, while new proposals raise questions about water use and contamination. What policies, if any, would you support regarding existing sites, cleanup costs, and new uranium mining proposals? What role should scientific evidence and the decisions of affected Tribal governments play?
New Mexico is still living with the last uranium boom. Hundreds of abandoned mines remain on or near the Navajo Nation, and the companies that profited never paid the full cost of cleanup.
Here in the Tularosa Basin, we know this story. Downwinder families waited generations for recognition after the Trinity test. I stand with them and will advocate for the compensation and health care they are owed.
My position is the one I gave the Sierra Club, which has endorsed my campaign:
Clean up first. I support state funding to speed remediation and pressing the federal government and responsible companies to pay, not taxpayers. No new mines until the old bill is settled. I will not support new uranium mining until legacy contamination is addressed and independent review, not industry-funded review, confirms water and public health are protected. Consent of affected communities. Tribal governments are sovereign. No project should move forward over the objection of the communities it affects.
Science should decide the safety questions: independent groundwater monitoring, health studies, and water-use data, all made public. I support nuclear energy and its jobs, but not at the expense of families’ water.
Q4 Q4 (Commercial Aerospace): New Mexico has invested public funds in Spaceport America and the commercial aerospace sector, prompting questions about environmental impacts and taxpayer investment. What conditions, if any, would you place on future state investment, and how should operating, infrastructure, and environmental costs be divided between public and private entities? How would you evaluate economic benefits alongside safety, wildfire, debris, and community impacts?
Space is part of who we are in Otero County. I attended the New Mexico Museum of Space History’s 50th anniversary celebration in Alamogordo, and it reminded me how deeply space and Holloman Air Force Base are woven into our community and economy. I am proudly pro-military and pro-space, and I want New Mexico to lead in commercial aerospace.
I would support future state investment with clear conditions:
Public dollars, public returns. Tie funding to measurable benchmarks: jobs for New Mexicans, local contracts, and lease revenue, with repayment if commitments are missed. Fair cost sharing. The state builds shared infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Private operators pay their own operating costs, insurance, debris recovery, and environmental cleanup. Protect the mission. Commercial activity must be coordinated with Holloman and White Sands Missile Range so it never compromises airspace or military readiness. Safety first. Require wildfire prevention plans, debris response plans, and financial assurance before launch.
I would evaluate benefits with an independent annual report: taxpayer dollars in, jobs and revenue out, alongside incidents, wildfire risk, and community concerns. We lost Bonito Lake to wildfire once. Growth and safety have to go together.
Q5 Q5 (Nuclear Waste): The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad is the nation’s only deep geologic repository for defense-related transuranic waste, storing radioactive waste like plutonium and americium. What position would you take on WIPP’s future mission and proposals to change the types or amount of waste it accepts? What oversight policies, if any, would you support for transportation safety, worker safety, and radiation protection, and how would you evaluate their effectiveness?
WIPP serves a national defense mission, and it provides good jobs for southeastern New Mexico families. I respect that work and want it done safely.
But New Mexico already carries more than its share of the nation’s nuclear waste. My position is the one I gave the Sierra Club, which has endorsed my campaign: I oppose bringing additional high-level waste to our state.
For WIPP, that means:
Keep the mission as promised. WIPP was built for defense-related transuranic waste within limits set by law. I would oppose expanding the types or amount of waste without independent scientific review, state consent, and public input. Strong state oversight. Fully fund the Environment Department’s permitting and inspection role so the state is never just a bystander. Safe transportation. Fund training and equipment for first responders along shipping routes. Protect workers. The 2014 fire and radiation release closed WIPP for nearly three years. Workers deserve strong safety standards and whistleblower protection.
I would measure effectiveness with public data: shipment incidents, worker exposure records, independent air and groundwater monitoring, and inspection results, reported every year.
Q6 Q6 (Data Centers): Large data-center proposals, including Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, have raised community questions about jobs and investment, water use, electricity generation and prices, air quality, noise, and light. What standards, if any, should New Mexico apply when reviewing these projects, and what role should residents have in approval decisions? How should added infrastructure and resource costs be allocated, and what evidence would you use to evaluate promised benefits and actual impacts?
In the desert, water and affordable power come first. I am not calling for a ban, but a data center proposal must meet three conditions or it should not be considered:
Closed-loop water that does not draw on local aquifers or water-short areas. Its own power, separate from the grid, with no effect on electric rates for residents or small businesses. A noise mitigation plan that protects neighbors.
Costs should follow the project. If a data center needs new power plants, grid upgrades, roads, or water lines, the company pays, not households.
Residents deserve a real voice: public hearings before approval and full disclosure of water and energy use.
I would judge promises against evidence: independent audits of water and power use, verified local job counts, and tax revenue actually received, with incentives tied to results.
I have put my conditions in writing. My opponent has not stated a position in his own name, while the news site he founded and edits has welcomed Project Jupiter and criticized those who want to slow it down.
Q7 Q7 (Rural and Tribal Healthcare): A New Mexico analysis found that rural residents travel three to four times farther, on average, than urban residents for the hospital-based services it examined. What policies would you support to improve healthcare access in rural and Tribal communities? How would you work with Tribal governments on their priorities, and what measures would you use to assess progress?
I worked as a certified nursing assistant and cared for family at home, so I know what distance costs rural families: missed work, missed appointments, and care that comes too late.
I would support:
Workforce first. Better pay and training for CNAs, nurses, and direct-care workers, loan repayment for providers who serve rural areas, and a stronger healthcare pipeline at NMSU-Alamogordo. Faster licensing. License portability so military spouses and out-of-state professionals can start work quickly. Care closer to home. Telehealth with reliable rural broadband, home- and community-based care for seniors, and transportation to appointments and pharmacies. Behavioral health. More rural treatment capacity and crisis teams that pair officers with mental health professionals.
Tribal governments are sovereign partners, including our neighbors in the Mescalero Apache Tribe. I would start by listening, consult government to government before legislation is drafted, and support Tribal priorities for funding and facilities instead of substituting my own.
I would measure progress with public numbers: travel time to care, appointment wait times, provider vacancies, and preventable emergency room visits, reported by county and Tribal community so rural areas are not hidden in statewide averages.
Q8 Q8 (K-12 Science Education): In 2025-26, science proficiency fell from 35% to 33% statewide and from 40% to 32% in Taos Municipal Schools in Northern New Mexico. In Southern New Mexico, Las Cruces Public Schools has described uneven broadband access for students in rural Doña Ana County communities. What policies would you support to strengthen K-12 science instruction across the state, particularly in rural and Tribal communities? How would you improve access to qualified teachers, laboratory learning, and advanced courses, and measure progress?
Otero County is a living science classroom. We have Holloman Air Force Base, White Sands, the New Mexico Museum of Space History, and a federal desalination research facility. Our students should graduate ready for those careers, yet only a third of New Mexico students are proficient in science.
I would support:
Qualified teachers. Competitive pay, loan repayment, and paid teacher residencies for science teachers who commit to rural and Tribal schools, plus grow-your-own programs through local colleges like NMSU-Alamogordo. Hands-on labs. State funding for lab equipment and supplies, and mobile labs for small districts that cannot afford their own. Advanced courses everywhere. Dual-credit and online advanced courses, backed by reliable rural broadband so a student’s zip code does not limit their options. Local partnerships. Connect classrooms with our national labs, military bases, museums, and employers for mentoring and internships. Tribal leadership. Work with Tribal education departments on their priorities, including culturally relevant science instruction.
I would measure progress by district, not just statewide: science proficiency, certified science teacher vacancies, the share of schools with working labs, advanced course enrollment, and student broadband access, all reported publicly each year.
Q9 Q9 (Federal Research Funding): Federal research supports jobs, scientific innovation, universities, and local businesses across New Mexico, while growth associated with major research facilities can affect housing and infrastructure. Changes to federal budgets and rules governing research grants and oversight can affect how institutions receive and administer funding. What priorities would guide your position on federal research funding in New Mexico, and what changes, if any, would you support? How would you evaluate scientific value, benefits to residents, local infrastructure and environmental costs, and accountability for public funds?
Federal research is part of daily life in Otero County. Holloman Air Force Base, White Sands Missile Range, and the national desalination research facility in Alamogordo bring good jobs and solve real problems, including how desert communities will find water.
Three priorities would guide me:
Stability. Researchers, universities, and small businesses need predictable funding. I would work with our congressional delegation, across party lines, to protect New Mexico’s research mission, and support state matching funds so sudden federal changes do not cost local jobs. Local benefit. Research dollars should reach residents through local hiring, small-business contracts, and training pipelines at schools like NMSU-Alamogordo. Communities kept whole. Growth strains housing, roads, and water. Institutions and the state should plan for those costs together, so local ratepayers are not left covering them.
On rule changes, I support oversight that prevents waste without burying scientists in paperwork or politics. Peer review should judge scientific merit.
I would evaluate results with public reporting: jobs and contracts in New Mexico, research outcomes, housing and infrastructure impacts, environmental compliance, and independent audits of how public funds are spent.